Could Sarah Palin be right about Michelle Obama?

page: 13
27
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by pinchanze
So whats your point!


That entire post was nothing but a personal attack on someone else's intelligence level. If that is what you are going to attack, it helps to at least appear somewhat intelligent yourself.

A poorly worded, formatted, written, and expressed personal insult in empty defense of Sarah Palin hardly fits the bill.

That would be my point.


Let me try to be even more clear. Typos happen, I am guilty. Spelling seems to get more and more difficult as time with autocorrect word processors eats away at my brain, I am guilty. Saying stupid things happens, I am guilty.

Now. If you are going to go to the effort to post in words on a forum about a subject that involves some reading skills and all you post is a personal insult about someone else's intelligence, you should just try and appear at least slightly intelligent yourself.

Further, I did not attack anyone but I asked a question. Since the attack post was in reference to the poor performance of public schools, I wondered what kind of school produced the writer of said post. It actually seemed relevant to the topic at hand to me. See, if the poster went to a private school and cannot write a coherent sentence, then their disparraging of public schools would seem a bit empty. If said poster was an example of the poor education one gets from public school then I have to question the assessment offered by someone who is a product of such. Since we are discussing public schools and what they can and cannot or should or should not do in context of Michelle Obama suggesting something and people equating it to a bill they just imagined, it seemed like a relevant question to ask.

Can you tell me what kind of school the other poster went to or not?
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


If he gets his point accross whats it matter.. You attacked his spelling and grammer! Are you not attacking his intelligence? Hypocrite!




posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinchanze
If he gets his point accross whats it matter.. You attacked his spelling and grammer! Are you not attacking his intelligence? Hypocrite!


because he did not get his point across. I attacked nothing. I noted that the post as a whole was nothing but a poorly written personal attack in defense of Sarah Palin on the topic of intelligence. All that together is not exactly going to get youn into MENSA now is it?

AGAIN, SLOWLY

poor spelling + bad grammar + NOTHING BUT personal attacks about intelligence + blind defense of Sarah Palin all add up together. The post highlighted how the partisan logic is eating iteslf. I am sorry you did not catch that.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia
reply to post by pinchanze
 


Let me try to really nail it down for you, ok? Please take no offense, this is not an attack on you or anyone else. This is just my observation of the thread as a whole.

Michelle Obama suggests that you feed your kids food that is good for them. She then suggests public schools provide food that is good for them.
Sarah Palin, potential presidential hopeful in 2012, comes out against Michelle Obama suggesting that public schools should have healthier menus.



We come here to ATS and add a little hysteria and from out of nowhere, Michelle Obama and the food bill are somehow linked. This confounds me as she had nothing to do with any bill. The first lady has no such power.

It just seems to me that if this is some liberal, big government, indoctrination bill then Sarah should be going after the bill and the people that wrote and passed it. Instead she targets the lady that suggested maybe your daughter not have a half dozen glazed donuts for lunch at school? You cannot dance diabetes off.

See, that kind of crystallizes it for me right there. While Palin was decrying the "liberal agenda" of sex education while pushing her morally superior "abstinence only" her own daughter was magically impregnated by some low life high school crush. All I can think is, Sarah protected her daughter from learning about condoms. That worked out well eh? Now she wants to protect her daughter from nutritious suggestions? Well, I hate to be caddy but Bristol can take that on the chin a couple of times. See what I am saying here? Sarah has not exactly been betting on wining horses here.

Then I see the partisan hatred is so thick that people immediately jump to Palin's defense in this thread about this topic which is nothing more than the first lady suggesting a good idea: Your kids should get healthy food.

Do we really want to fight that? Is everything in the US going so well now that we have the time and energy to lash out against suggesting our kids eat healthy food? I cannot wait to see the signs at the marches.

It is not bad enough that Michelle suggesting your kids have healthy lunches at school with a bill she had nothing to do with, people need to make things up. You have to claim the law will prevent your kids from eating cheese puffs in school. It will not. It may prevent the school from selling cheese puffs but you can send them to school with a 5 gallon drum full if you like. Why the hell should the public schools not be providing healthy meals again? Make thatargument.

The idea that anyone is going to control what you eat is insanity of the highest level when rightwingers get ahold of this crap. The argument being put forth is that you demand that the government feed your kids but they do not get to choose what to feed your kids. Why do you not just feed your own kids? You had them, you get your ass to Wal-mart and buy those cheese puffs. That is what we do here.

So then when I see something that look to me like this-

Sarah Palin is an idiot and crappy politician

followed by something resembling this

Nu uh! Palin be smart use pretty words much good thinking public schools make stupid! gar gar gar gar

I think to myself - that is it right there. That encapsulates the argument completely. It was a great summary and I thought it looked nice as a bookend to the idea that Palin supporters should all be taken so seriously.

Look at it with me, please?

PersonA: Public schools are a disgrace to this country. Michelle Obama is dead wrong on this and Sarah Palin knows what she is saying.
PersonB: Why do you say public schools suck?
PersonA: Because all they do is indoctrinate you to be a brainless liberal and hamper critical thinking. They just pump out stupid people, believe me I know. I went to a public school.
PersonB: Then wouldn't that make you too stupid to make that call?

Yeah, so Michelle thinks that if you are too lazy to feed your kids and they are too dependant to feed themselves, schools should probably have stuff that is good for them on hand instead of cheap crap.
Sarah Palin thinks that is a bad idea?


Read who instigated the design of the bill and the response from Obama after he signed the bill into law what would happen to him if he did not sign it. Read his quotes about Michelle if he did not sign it! It's indirectly her bill!!!!!! I do not need the goverment telling me what I should feed my kids. The goverment is telling me that they know what is good for my children!!!!!PLEASE.Who has funded the school food programs up to this point? The state and federal goverment. Who oks the nutritional standards set in our schools? The goverment. So my question is then. What the hell have they been doing for the last gazillion years? Feeding our children crap food? If that is so I want all my tax dollars back for a crap job. They haven't been doing their job right in the first place and you want me to have em do it again. bull#! Don't fall for this crap healthy food my ass!!!!!!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by pinchanze
Read who instigated the design of the bill and the response from Obama after he signed the bill into law what would happen to him if he did not sign it. Read his quotes about Michelle if he did not sign it! It's indirectly her bill!!!!!! I do not need the goverment telling me what I should feed my kids.

I am actually still waiting for you to provide me with any evidence this bill exists.

The goverment is telling me that they know what is good for my children!!!!!PLEASE.Who has funded the school food programs up to this point? The state and federal goverment. Who oks the nutritional standards set in our schools? The goverment. So my question is then. What the hell have they been doing for the last gazillion years? Feeding our children crap food? If that is so I want all my tax dollars back for a crap job. They haven't been doing their job right in the first place and you want me to have em do it again. bull#! Don't fall for this crap healthy food my ass!!!!!!

LOL, uh....no.

I do not want you to do a damn thing but if you are going to depend on the government to feed your kids, then you are a commie!



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 03:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by Sinnthia

Originally posted by pinchanze
If he gets his point accross whats it matter.. You attacked his spelling and grammer! Are you not attacking his intelligence? Hypocrite!


because he did not get his point across. I attacked nothing. I noted that the post as a whole was nothing but a poorly written personal attack in defense of Sarah Palin on the topic of intelligence. All that together is not exactly going to get youn inot MENSA now is it?

AGAIN, SLOWLY

poor spelling + bad grammar + NOTHING BUT personal attacks about intelligence + blind defense of Sarah Palin all add up together. The post highlighted how the partisan logic is eating iteslf. I am sorry you did not catch that.
edit on 5-1-2011 by Sinnthia because: (no reason given)


I don't know how old you are sinnthia and this goes for all you other posters. I was raised around the secret world of my father, an intelligence officer. His lips were as tight as a pocket on a pair of levi's but he did tell me one thing that i have remembered here until my 50s. "What you think you know, you don't and what you don't know in most cases you never will". Think! think!think! The medium is the massage. you understand that? Palin will never be president! Remember this. Whoever carries 40% of the hispanic vote will win the election. Simple demographics and statistics.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
reply to post by silent thunder
 


If the shoe fits........... Besides, I bet with Obama and Clinton, their wives were/are every bit as much president behind the scenes as themselves. What I mean is that these wives definitely have a sizable influence on their husbands. And Laura Bush did look like a Xanaxed-out Stepford wife. An "angel," if you will, complete with a robotic set of guiding parameters contained within a few algorithms. Wife 2.0 with a plastic set of wings. Honestly, I don't know the attraction. If I want a blow up doll, I'll go to the local sex shop, thank you very much. A natural, albeit impossible-to-figure-out woman is far more exciting. But I doubt Laura was like that in private. I'll bet she was/is like the female version of Janus, the two-faced diety. Under that facade rests an angry snake just waiting to bite.
edit on 5-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 08:04 AM
link   
reply to post by pinchanze
 


I'm kinda with you. While Sarah Palin may not be presidential, that woman knows exactly what she is doing. Let's call it surfing a rose. She is riding a wave in an agenda. And she is being mightily rewarded for it. She's not trying to be reasonable or deep. She is cute and witty and tenacious and spews out the talking points. It is almost as if she is DELIBERATELY making an ass of herself, and laughing all the way to the bank. And she does so, in my view, with a mind towards an intangible goal. And those who support that intangible prop her up. She has figured out how to ride a media wave. She is like Kim Kardashian. Quintessential, highly effective whore. There. I said it. So shoot me. Methinks TPTB want to expose a certain archetype that is ridiculous, supporting it now, only to let it drop like a ton of bricks in the not-too-distant future. The Ghostbusters got another, he he. And I am being a little cryptic on purpose. read between the lines.

Edit: And to comment on the OP, I don't disagree with the promoting of healthy food. I disagree with the placation that is inherent in the delivery. Treat people like dumb effs, and they might just fall to the occasion. If you are going to promote an agenda, at least do it with respect for the audience's intelligence. And for all of those who would respond saying how dumb this nation is, I say to look in the damn mirror. Even the most uneducated, in my view, tend to be far more intelligent than these messages convey. But, I guess a royal intelligentsia needs it's idiots, even if they have to create them, binding them within their stupid storybook version of reality. It makes them necessary.
edit on 5-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 09:14 AM
link   

Originally posted by zuul000

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree with Sarah on this issue. She's trying to pit herself against Michelle for the upcoming election because she has no chance if she runs against Barack.


I disagree.

Her job in 2012 is to run, motivate the evangelical wing of the GOP, then drop out and transfer her endorsement and treasury to the actual candidate.

She just needs to keep her name in the news for another year so she can complete her finish her assignment. Ergo, occasional statements like this designed to motivate the left into the hysterics she can so ably and easily provoke from them, and motivate the evangelical right into the militant defense of her she can likewise provoke.


Bingo, we have a winner. That seems the most likely scenario of all. Very well thought out.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 10:09 AM
link   

Originally posted by Blaine91555
This thread is amazingly revealing. It leads one to wonder why people who are so in favor of government control, even to the level of dictating what we eat, would have any interest in a site like ATS? The last place on earth you would expect to find those who are FOR government control.


How about instead of thinking that way, you rethink things

I am anti-corporate brainwashing. If Government, elected by the people, rail against some sort of brainwashing that greedy soulless corporate interests are imposing on people, why not stand behind that?

Do you agree that anti-smoking campaigns by government is good, or do you want to go back to the days when cigarettes were touted as healthy on daytime television?

When given the choice between kneeling at the alter of corporation, or the alter of government, at least with government, we can fire them and force transparency.

I am anti-corporatist (and granted, alot of government has all but become a corporatist agenda)..but, I still believe at least some aspects of government is working for the best interest of the people...the second I stop thinking that, is when I vote out whomever is representing my district. Pretty simple really.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by orwellianunenlightenment

Originally posted by zuul000

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I disagree with Sarah on this issue. She's trying to pit herself against Michelle for the upcoming election because she has no chance if she runs against Barack.


I disagree.

Her job in 2012 is to run, motivate the evangelical wing of the GOP, then drop out and transfer her endorsement and treasury to the actual candidate.

She just needs to keep her name in the news for another year so she can complete her finish her assignment. Ergo, occasional statements like this designed to motivate the left into the hysterics she can so ably and easily provoke from them, and motivate the evangelical right into the militant defense of her she can likewise provoke.


Bingo, we have a winner. That seems the most likely scenario of all. Very well thought out.

Yes.
Kind of like a cheerleader, pumping up the fans. Was she ever a cheerleader? Looks like she could have been.



posted on Jan, 5 2011 @ 02:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by Ghost374
Sarah Palin must've been dropped on her head as a baby multiple times. I can't believe millions of people take her seriously. Really? She never makes any goddamn sense. Michelle hasn't done anything different from previous first ladies. They all act like spoiled rich ladies because that's what they are.
I have no problem with Palin's policies but she is as dumb as a rock. She's just like the rest of America! Perfect fit for president.
Did she completely forget that the government is in charge of our public schools? The government has been teaching us for almost a hundred years.

edit on 3-1-2011 by Ghost374 because: (no reason given)

She needs to be dropped a few more times.
I don't think Palin HAS any policies, I truely believe she will say and be whatever it takes for the spotlight. She is a frustrated actror wantabee, politics was just easier to get into for the attention.



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 07:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Char-Lee
 


Yes, another good point, but..................she is getting the reaction she wants. She is a troll, yet like fools, people keep feeding her (not saying I am guiltless). Ignore IT and IT will go away. Yes, I just called Sarah Palin an IT. She has a midget in the back seat of her minivan, so to speak.....
This is for the most part unrelated, but there is a tie in: I was recently playing Fable 3. There is this side quest in which a guy gets a magical gargoyle which awakens 50 gnomes. You then have to go around and find the gnomes and kill them. They say very petty, annoying, childish things seeking an emotional response when you are in their vicinity. Palin is bait for people who cannot look away from a very idiotic aspect of life, something that honestly only needs to be ignored to go away. These types feed off of the backlash. Don't feed it, and it will die. Or locate its little hiding place and put a bullet in it's brain, metaphorically speaking, of course. She does encourage me, however. Anytime some disgusting element of humanity reveals itself, especially in today's world of mass communication, the collective ends up eliminating it. Bitch should have kept on her p-p-p-p-p-poker face. Granted, she will probably sit pretty and rich for the rest of her life. However, I do think that her antics cannot be repeated by another, at least not in a similar way, say a decade from now or even less. I believe, although individual life is unfair and never can be, life in general is fair in the LONG term. When BS exposes itself for too long, it is not allowed to exist, at least for a while.
edit on 6-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)
edit on 6-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)



posted on Jan, 6 2011 @ 08:00 AM
link   
I want to see Sarah Palin, the next-ed president of USA.
Sick of SMART Lawyers, as Presidents..
Sick Of SMART men, recking our beautiful home land.
Time for Mothers to bring back the home, "I love"
2012 please not BACHMANN or HILLARY.
thanks!



posted on Jan, 7 2011 @ 05:44 PM
link   
reply to post by 19rn50
 


I am not too fond of the lawyers either. Not sure where the misandry comes from though. It is long since outdated. Get in fashion, girlfriend. BTW, Obama has a more feminine perspective than Hillary could ever muster. She sold out to the old paradigm of nastiness and cut-throat antics long ago, so, in a way, we have our first woman president (not disrespecting the man, just pointing something out, although he is more aptly labeled androgynous). Oh, and I don't think narcissistic caricatures should ever be president, just mindless entertainment fodder, but that is only my opinion of course.


Edit: I must add that upon reading your post once more, it seems you might have had a tongue firmly implanted in your cheek. If so, my apologies.
edit on 7-1-2011 by orwellianunenlightenment because: (no reason given)





new topics
top topics
 
27
<< 10  11  12   >>

log in

join